Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Probably not, it's the internet.
Obligation to Police
Started by valianteffort
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
It's kinda "baked in", or the <<raison d'etre>>.
None of it seems extreme until all at once it becomes so. The entirety of the discussion seems quite germane to the OP's original post. Apparently the OP is just fortunate they weren't told they were obstructing an investigation and arrested. And yes, this all is indeed the purpose of the internet.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What you wrote is far more rational than the overwhelming majority of posts and likes in this thread. However, I will point out that it is incumbent on you to be willing to have a mature and rational discourse with curious cops, and this often begins with a statement that goes something like this, “Hey Officer, we have rather strict privacy laws that govern what patient information we can release. Help me understand the nature of your investigation so that I can better determine if I’m allowed to discuss this with you.” I’m far more likely to be helpful to an officer is trying to determine if the girl in bed 6 is being trafficked, than say an officer who is trying to determine if the drunk guy in bed 7 was the driver or passenger.
It started getting twisted when you posted the ridiculous and false claim that talking to the police, “can ONLY get you in trouble.” That’s insane. It really went off the rails when a forum moderator posted a video about not trying to talk your way out of an arrest as if it’s somehow pertinent to interactions with police as part of our jobs. Seriously, they couldn’t tell the difference between free legal advice to suspects being detained by the police versus how we as EPs should be interacting with cops as part of our jobs? So yes, some people should never talk to the police and a select few should probably even avoid eye contact.
There are literally hundreds of EP-police discussions each day that involve rational discourse about crimes committed in our communities. The overwhelming majority are legal, compliant with HIPAA, serve the greater good of our society, and come at no harm to the physician. In fact interacting with LE is such an integral part of our jobs as emergency physicians that our residencies often have shared didactic instruction with LE (ie range day, lectures on ballistics and wounding, SWAT operations, preservation of evidence, etc).
Last edited:
It is a perfectly rational take to say that discourse with police has the potential to be twisted and used against you, or in the context of the OP, to be possibly professionally disadvantageous. Not only have people replied with personal anecdotes about this, but there's also, you know, the national zeitgeist regarding police brutality, unwarranted killings, false arrests, police being able to outright lie to you whenever it serves them, etc etc over the past several decades that gives anyone a very good reason to pause before interacting with police, easily capsulized into "don't talk to the police."
It's not hard to conceptualize that one can simultaneously hold those views and still be cordial with police officers in our line of work. I and others have said this in this very thread, and this narrative of "oh so you wouldn't call 911 if someone is killing your grandmother, checkmate" feels more than a bit disingenuous from what you could probably surmise was being said.
It’s not always easy to know when they’re asking for your help and actually investigating you. Maybe you missed the part where I was questioned about a case and only realized in retrospect that I was personally being investigated. For nonreporting of NAT (which had no hallmarks of NAT).
Don’t talk to police when they are questioning you if you can help it. It’s not really worth the risk.
do be cordial with them, do let them know when there is something they may want to look into, do be polite and comply with all instructions when getting pulled over, do call 911 to report a crime (but just report. No more). But do not submit to questioning without a lawyer.
So you’re telling me that you can’t distinguish between being a victim and not a suspect?
I guess it helps since police officers will do anything to not arrest a fellow officer, even if it means hiding drunk driving officers.
…talking about the police… and the police are easily triggered.
If I just started blasting away because an acorn fell, I doubt I would be free to walk away from the person I tried to kill.
While the video did not discuss the scenario posted by OP (e.g. being asked to state "on the record" what your thoughts about a case were), I still thought it was a relevant reminder that seemingly innocuous conversations with the police may carry legal ramifications.
If this somehow came across as derisive or offensive, that was not my intent. I certainly do not view this information as inflammatory or decidedly off topic, however, I am also not approaching this from the perspective of a former LEO.
In my state, the minimum initial training to be a cop is 2 weeks. Yes, they are with a FTO after that, but they are uniform, carrying a firearm, and have arrest powers after 80 hours of training.
In NY it's 1095 hours. So, more like paramedic than your EMT hours.
Yeah, but that’s not exactly what you posted.You threw that video up there with the comment, “Fantastic lecture on why not to talk to the police…” with no qualification and in the context of other posts about never talking to the police as we conduct or jobs as physicians.
A good rule of thumb is that people responding to complex, nuanced questions with absolutes and anecdotes are generally dispensing bad advice. It’s also telling when forum members start posting the extreme examples of police misconduct such as the acorn shooting as reasons for not talking to police. Seriously, are you people afraid that a police officer is going to start shootings up your ED if startled by a meal tray being dropped? That is about as dumb as thinking that female patients should avoid male EPs because a few of our former colleagues have sexually assaulted female patients.
Another perspective that deserves challenge is this notion that nothing good ever comes from talking to the police. While it is uncommon that our opinions as EPs are make-or-break in an investigation, there are absolutely instances where our information may be important and help our patients. This is especially true with crime prevention, violence mitigation, etc.
So, here is an alternative perspective. Physicians being approached by LE will need to weigh the circumstances of each encounter in deciding how to respond. Some principles that might guide our response to law enforcement are:
1) Do I have the consent from the patient to discuss their care with the police.
2) Would the information that I divulge help my patient
3) Would the information help the public and maybe prevent others from becoming patients
4) Am I obligated to talk to the police by local statues (ie mandatory reporting), court orders, etc.
Last edited:
Do you know the minimum number of intubations an EP in residency must have according to the ACGME?
Just 35. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/...es/em_key_index_procedure_minimums_103117.pdf
Now, you show me a police officer who was given a badge and a gun after 80 hours of training, and I’ll work on finding you an EP who completed EM residency with just 35 intubations under their belt. I’m not saying that neither exists - I am saying that neither is the norm…and that both minimums are pathetic and an embarrassment.
I could show you a former cop who started with a badge and a gun with two weeks of training. I won't online, but he runs the private security company that covers the ER I work at. He was a a cop for several years before leaving to have his own gig. He became a cop when he was 18 years old.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
No it isn't.
Heh heh.
"Extreme examples of police misconduct" does not mean that these instances are not relatively commonplace. The advent of body cams means that we get to see just how commonplace inappropriate policing is. In fact, here's a video just posted today that highlights some of what we've talked about in this thread.
Inappropriate response at scene for a medical emergency, physician not asking the police to leave the room when examining him, etc. Wish we could see more of the interaction between officers and medical staff, but still. Imagine you have a seizure tonight and cop some felony charges for being postictal and being unfortunate enough that police responded before EMS!
Now, note that this doesn't mean that there is good policing out there. There is. I'm saying this lest someone (else) says this is only "cop bashing". But examples like the above are not new, isolated, or unique. There is a reason for the growing disconnect between the populace and the police, because it is often a spin of the roulette wheel as to the outcome.
Inappropriate response at scene for a medical emergency, physician not asking the police to leave the room when examining him, etc. Wish we could see more of the interaction between officers and medical staff, but still. Imagine you have a seizure tonight and cop some felony charges for being postictal and being unfortunate enough that police responded before EMS!
Now, note that this doesn't mean that there is good policing out there. There is. I'm saying this lest someone (else) says this is only "cop bashing". But examples like the above are not new, isolated, or unique. There is a reason for the growing disconnect between the populace and the police, because it is often a spin of the roulette wheel as to the outcome.
I watched the whole seizure video. What I think I find really frustrating is that police so often decline to arrest or DAs prosecute assaults on healthcare providers, but clearly the bar was essentially absent for an assault on a police officer. In terms of this particular case, yes, we all know after the fact and because we are healthcare professionals that the man is postictal. I'm not sure we can hold police to that standard and I'm also not sure how that knowledge is particularly helpful. How would it have been different if he was drunk? The officer still had to contain the situation. The man was clearly agitated. What if the officer had just walked out of the room and the guy fell and smashed his or his wife's face? There would also have been a lawsuit. It was lose-lose. You can say the tasing was too much and maybe, but I'm not 100% sure. This man looks older, but he's not appearing weak at all. He actually looks bigger than the officer involved. It seems like the officer STILL had trouble getting control of the situation even after the tasing, which I could see in someone with a really severely agitated delirium. The officer was not carrying around 10 mg of Zyprexa IM. The problem, really, is the arrest requested by the apparently not present supervisor. That, along with the thorough interview of a clearly out of it person, is where things went wrong and why this will be settled out of court for at least a moderate amount. More complete communication between physicians and police might actually have prevented that part. Also, the police department's public response was in poor taste. You apologize that a bad thing happened without admitting fault and certainly not ever accuse a victim of ANYTHING, including "litigating in the court of public opinion." Honestly, just that public response added on $100k to the settlement. If you ever use that phrase, you're going to lose in both public opinion and real court.
Last edited:
Remember that time a police officer entered the wrong apartment and murdered the lease holder... and it took 3 days before the police decided to actually arrest her? Her union paid for her defense. Do you think that if I went into the wrong apartment and murdered the people inside I'd enjoy an extra 72 hours of freedom?
The fact is that the police operate under a lower standard than the average citizen. The average citizen doesn't have qualified immunity to protect them in civil court from a mistake of law AND if a citizen makes a mistake when dealing with the police, they're likely to end up dead. See any time the police no-knock the wrong house and the innocent victims inside defend themselves from armed individuals unlawfully entering their house in the dead of night. Also how often are we now seeing videos of police officers letting fellow officers go free for drunk driving?
There's a reason "we've investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing" is a cliche.
One final thing. Why is it that when some one is arrested for a major crime, the police come out and make a big scene with press conferences, mug shots, and dash cam footage... but when ever a police officer is arrested for a crime, suddenly we have to respect the officer's privacy and everything is locked down?
Goose meet gander.
Last edited:
Let's ask Senior Airman Fortson about whether following the rules keeps you safe...
...oh, wait...
The golfer? that’s your example?
Yes. The number 1 ranked millionaire white golfer that was on his way to the tournament. Was trying his best to follow instructions in an unclear situation. And yet STILL got assaulted by a police officer and is facing felony charges now. It’s a perfect example.
I think assaulted is a bit dramatic here and race is irrelevant. Confusing situation in which an officer made bad choices, will likely be reprimanded, and Scheffler will likely get all charges dropped.
The officer pushed him against the car. Assault.
So the fact that charges will probably/most likely be dropped negate the fact that he has active felony charges for nothing? What if he wasn’t a famous golfer and just say…a nobody doctor? What about a young black man? Would they still likely get dropped? Maybe just bumped down to a misdemeanor? Why did this happen at all???
I’m not it’s at all clear what happened. The office banged on the window and he drug the officer instead of stopping. He was out on his own recognizance with no bail or anything in time to make his tee time, which was certainly special treatment.
Regardless of the situation specifics, of which all signs point to the officer being an unreasonable ego-driven brute who essentially created a situation where he injured his own self, I’m sure Scheffler wishes that in retrospect he could have just…avoided a police interaction in the first place. Which goes back to the beginning topic of this thread.
Last edited:
In this situation, if he wasn’t a golfer in the tournament then he wouldn’t have been waved to go around by anybody (I believe the players all have courtesy cars marking them as such and they were being waved around) so he would have been breaking the law.
If he wasn’t white then he 100% would have been shot on first contact…is that what you want to hear or at least think? For my own curiosity, are you white?
It’s funny you’re ragging on the police when he was very complimentary of them.
This happened because bad outcomes happen and will never be completely prevented. You know this from medicine. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Every profession has their bad actors but continue to think that every cop is out to get you in every scenario.
If he wasn’t white or a famous golfer, he would have a good chance of being a felon in the coming months. If he was a young black man, the odds of him having force used against him would drastically increase.
What does my own race have to do with it?
It’s is completely different than interactions with medicine. Agree that bad outcomes are unavoidable with a certain amount of volume. What are the potential GOOD outcomes with unsolicited police interactions? Neutral at best.
What does my own race have to do with it?
It’s is completely different than interactions with medicine. Agree that bad outcomes are unavoidable with a certain amount of volume. What are the potential GOOD outcomes with unsolicited police interactions? Neutral at best.
I thought you said he was assaulted? If he were black or not a famous golfer you feel like he would have been assaulted harder (morer?).
I think your race is just as irrelevant as Scottie’s but you’re the one that continues to use hypotheticals largely based on race. Using useless hypotheticals, what if the officer was black?
What are the potential outcomes with anyone unsolicited? That makes no basis for your seemingly anti-police (or should I see neutral at best) views.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You don’t think there’s levels of assault? To use your words, yes you can be assaulted harder.
It’s fairly undeniable that black Americans, especially young black men, get a less fair shake than a famous wealthy white man from the police when taken on the whole. Are you denying any kind of racial discrepancy in policing outcomes? I’m not trying to turn this into a “racism in America” post. I only brought it up because this golfer is statistically the least likely person to have a bad outcome with the police, and yet he is facing felony charges for a misunderstanding. It is relevant for anyone thinking “well, I’ll just cooperate and be fine!”
You posit that I am anti-police, when all I am saying is you should do everything in your power to avoid police interactions. On a personal level, this is the best path to self preservation. This entire thread is about willingly engaging with police when you have no business that requires their help. I think a police force is good for society. For the individual, you should avoid them unless you need their help directly. Otherwise you should stay away, as they can only hurt you. I find nothing contradictory about that belief set.
Last edited:
The cop also didn’t know who Scottie was so I’m not sure if saying if he were someone else the result would have been worse holds much water. The one thing that Scottie didn’t do was resist and make things much more complicated in an already complicated situation. You’re not going to resist your way out of that situation so comply and let the process play out. When things get escalated, the risk for an unavoidable bad outcome goes way up.
I guess the contradictory part I see is that you think police are not your friends, unless you directly need help then maybe they’re your friends. Just seems like a weird stance. I wouldn’t disagree on avoiding police interactions on the basis that many are because you’re either suspected of committing a crime/breaking the law or you’ve been a victim of a crime.
Last edited:
"Morer" 👍👍
That seems really low. I believe police here (Victoria, Australia) get around 5000 hours of training (116 weeks total, academy plus on the job training). You have to pass the first 12 weeks of academy based training to get enrolled in the Diploma of Policing course to start with as well. Honestly the level of training I hear police receiving in the US is more than a little frightening to me as an outsider.
I definitely would side with the posters advocating giving the police little to no information in that particular case, particularly when you are being told this is an "official statement", asked for your personal details, and being recorded. Any such statement should be in consultation with hospital attorneys/risk management. I've never had a police officer get heated if I say I need to talk to my legal team concerning what I allowed by law to tell them. I've found that being polite and professional usually will take care of the situation. If it doesn't, I do have an attorney that can represent me.
